[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley

2005-02-28

05

Scott Hollenbeck

[Ballot discuss]Section 1 says:

"The trace information, whichhas no semantical value, should take one of two forms: an Internetemail address, an opaque ...

[Ballot discuss]Section 1 says:

"The trace information, whichhas no semantical value, should take one of two forms: an Internetemail address, an opaque string which does not contain the '@'(U+0040) character and can be interpreted by the system administratorof the client's domain. For privacy reasons, an Internet emailaddress or other information identifying the user should only be usedwith permission from the user."

I don't see a description of the second form. Is the word "or" missing between "an Internet email address" and "an opaque string"?

2005-02-28

05

Scott Hollenbeck

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sam Hartman

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

Ballot has been issued by Sam Hartman

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

Created "Approve" ballot

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

State Change Notice email list have been change to kurt@openldap.org, tlyu@mit.edu from kurt@openldap.org

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

Note field has been cleared by Sam Hartman

2005-02-27

05

Sam Hartman

State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Sam Hartman

2005-02-22

05

Sam Hartman

Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-03-03 by Sam Hartman

2005-02-22

05

(System)

New version available: draft-ietf-sasl-anon-05.txt

2004-12-29

05

Sam Hartman

[Note]: 'Waiting for new draft' added by Sam Hartman

2004-12-29

05

Sam Hartman

Status date has been changed to 2004-12-29 from

2004-12-17

05

(System)

State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system

First, shouldn't the reference to StringPrep be RFC 3454 instead of adraft?

Secondly, a security consideration nit. The following paragraph:

The ANONYMOUS mechanism grants access to services and/or resources by anyone. For this reason it should be disabled by default so the administrator can make an explicit decision to enable it.

It seem to imply something that doesn't hold generally. Someprotocols are anonymous in nature (think NNTP). In those cases, itwouldn't make sense for administrators to have to explicitly enableANONYMOUS.

2004-12-03

05

Amy Vezza

Last call sent

2004-12-03

05

Amy Vezza

State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza

2004-12-02

05

Sam Hartman

State Change Notice email list have been change to kurt@openldap.org from hartmans@mit.edu, kurt@openLDAP.org

2004-12-02

05

Sam Hartman

Last Call was requested by Sam Hartman

2004-12-02

05

(System)

Ballot writeup text was added

2004-12-02

05

(System)

Last call text was added

2004-12-02

05

(System)

Ballot approval text was added

2004-12-02

05

Sam Hartman

State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Sam Hartman

2004-12-02

05

Sam Hartman

State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Sam Hartman